Instructions to Reviewers
Instructions to reviewers
Firstly, thank you very much for supporting BJAN, improving the overall quality of our manuscripts and contributing to the dissemination of science.
Please find below some instructions in order to guide the process. Do not hesitate to contact our editorial office if you have any feedback or suggestion regarding this document.
Before starting your revision process, please bear in mind that the editorial office performs a submission checklist that analyzes:
- If the text was written according to the instructions to authors
- If the article follows the journal scope, rules, and language
- If the format of graphic elements is adequate
Nevertheless, reviewers may point out any inconsistencies during the peer review process.
If you were invited to review an article, please accept or decline to review as soon as possible in your Editorial Manager menu, selecting the Reviewer role, and try to meet the deadlines.
Always submit your review in English.
Do not include your personal data in the review nor information that may identify you or your institution.
What to review
- The main steps of the peer reviewing process are to critically evaluate and validate the manuscript, help authors to convey their ideas, and provide constructive feedback.
- The reviewer’s critical analysis should focus on the refinement of the article. The reading focuses on an overview of the manuscript to identify if it is publishable, if it has adopted adequate methods, if it offers relevant novelties or if it has errors that make it unpublishable (major flaws).
- The reading should identify major and minor concerns in all sections of the article. At this stage, the introduction, methods, and results must be evaluated according to the study objectives and the proposed variables.
- Research questions must have been answered on the study.
- The structure and style must provide clarity and logic to the ideas the author intends to provide.
- Carefully access grammar, spelling and punctuation, since this an essential element of writing a scientific manuscript.
- It must be structured and contain an opening paragraph summarizing the study and bringing the most important information about the article.
- It should detail major problems, that affect the publication (inappropriately described methods or lack of support for the main findings); and minor ones, which do not prevent publication, but must be corrected, including the need for technical clarifications or improvements in the results presentation.
- Evidence and examples should be used to illustrate main concerns that warrant attention from authors.
- We recommend organizing the analysis using scripts for writing scientific articles, or reporting guidelines, according to the study design (EQUATOR).
- Originality and relevance of the topic.
- Adequacy of the title, abstract, and keywords.
- Introduction: context, main problems, and objectives.
- Theoretical reference: appropriateness to the context, relevance, and contribution to the analysis of the study.
- Methods:* Study flow diagram and statistical analysis.
- Results:* Consistency, accuracy, and organization are required to demonstrate data.
- Figures and tables: examine the presentation, data organization and graphic artwork quality. Please always check captions, which should be complete and clearly describe the figure/table, its statistical analysis, and abbreviations.
- Discussion:* evaluate consistency with the theoretical reference, main findings, and description of study limitations.
- Conclusion: check if it answers the study query and main objectives and provides discussion on main perspectives for further research.
- References: revise the validity, availability, and credibility of sources. Check if the list of references is complete and follows BJAN’s Instructions to authors
- Reporting guidelines (EQUATOR): Check if the guideline checklist and flowchart have been properly assembled.
Submitting your review
- All the communications must be made via the Editorial Manager system. All your assignments can be found in your Reviewer Main Menu.
- Make your comments directly in the “Editorial Manager Review” box or upload your review into the system, always making sure that your comments are clear, concise, and well-reasoned.
- Never write your recommendation as “accepted” or “ready to publish” directly to the authors, since only the Editor-in-Chief is allowed to make the final decision. Use the box “Comments to the Editor” to emphasize your opinion about the manuscript directly to the editor and blinded to authors.
Are you interested in becoming a reviewer? Please contact the Editorial Office: email@example.com.